Fluoride wars

The science is unequivocal: fluoridation promotes good oral health. So why are so many people still scared of it? Susan Chenery talks to Dr Michael Foley from the Australian Dental Association about his experiences fighting the good fight.

Things are rotting in the state of fluoridation in Queensland. Now known by some as “the toothless state”, it has been abandoning mandatory water fluoridation since LNP leader Campbell Newman placed it in the hands of local governments in 2012 and made it voluntary.

Now around three quarters of councils don’t fluoridate water.

Since the legislation changed, more than 20 councils have voted against it— including those that never fluoridated in the first place. This has left a little over a million Queenslanders without access to water with fluoride added. Dentists say that it is not hard to tell which part of the state a person comes from.

Dr Michael Foley, spokesperson for the Australian Dental Association (ADA), believes that dental health has been placed in the hands of those on local councils who do not have the expertise to make qualified assessments.

“Water is a major public health measure and should be a Federal Government responsibility,” says Dr Foley. “This is where high-level public health expertise lies.”

In addition, he says councils are being bombarded by emails from highly organised and coordinated anti-fluoride campaigners. “The head guy in the world is called Paul Connett, a retired chemistry professor in upstate New York. [Connett and his supporters] will use every argument they can possibly think of. They accuse water fluoridation for being responsible for every medical condition of mankind, from brittle bones to kidney disease to heart disease to allergies.”

Foley says that any town “from north Queensland to California to New Zealand” that is considering or debating fluoridation will be targeted and inundated with slick and convincing information. “I tell my students I defy anybody to look at their website and not have doubts about fluoridation. It is really really slick. It is rubbish, of course. They will pull out an animal study or some dodgy study from China. And they also say it is against human rights.”

“Water is a major public health measure and should be a Federal Government responsibility. This is where high-level public health expertise lies.” —Dr Michael Foley, Australian Dental Association

Prior to a recent debate in Ingham, North Queensland, Foley discovered there had been a letterbox drop. “Brochures that had all this stuff about how Hitler used fluoridation in his concentration camps to subdue the Jews. It would be laughable if it wasn’t people’s health being affected by it.”

Local councillors are being bamboozled, he believes. “They are good, decent people doing a tough job. But they know nothing about public heath, nothing about science and nothing about fluoridation. And for every letter that councillors get from the ADA or the AMA or the Health Department, they will get 10 or 50 from these people in a relentless campaign. Most councillors just throw up their hands in horror thinking that the science is divided. They are very easy prey to a relentless scaremongering campaign of misinformation.”

One councillor in Ingham had a daughter on dialysis with serious kidney disease. “So of course she was immediately scared when the spokesperson for the anti-fluoridation cause used the same arguments—from cancer to every disease—and thought [her disease] was from fluoride in the water.”

In fighting his rearguard action on behalf of the ADA, Foley has found himself in a full-scale war.

When Lismore Council put it to the vote in May last year, Dr Kerry Chant, the NSW chief health officer, arrived to support the proven scientific facts.

The anti-fluoride people had run a vicious campaign. “One of the nutters threatened her with sarin gas,” recalls Dr Foley. “The mayor spoke up on behalf of fluoridation, got out of her car and had the car door slammed on her head. One of the local dentists, Brendan White, spoke out on behalf of the ADA in Lismore and he had his rubbish bins overturned, he had rocks thrown on his house, he had abusive phone calls. He even had a female protester come up to his private dental practice when he had patients in the waiting room, and urinate on his front door step.”

Lismore voted against fluoride. Even though (according to a local survey)Northern Rivers children have the worst teeth in the state of NSW.

“[There were] brochures that had all this stuff about how Hitler used fluoridation in his concentration camps to subdue the Jews. It would be laughable if it wasn’t people’s health being affected by it.”—Dr Michael Foley, Australian Dental Association

Dr Foley—who says he has never made a dollar defending fluoridation—has been a moving target. “Over the last 10 or 15 years, I have had endless amounts of threats: threats to sue me, hang me, castrate me, jail me. It is just how these people operate.”

Even politicians, he says, get subjected to “all this abuse, this relentless campaign.”

In Ingham, he debated his nemesis Merilyn Haines, president of Queenslanders for Safe Water, Air and Food, who claims that fluoride is used as insecticide to kill cockroaches and ants.

For his trouble, Haines sent a seven-page formal complaint to the Premier, the Opposition Leader, the Health Minister, the Opposition Health Spokesman, her local MP, and the Director General of QLD Health, “insisting that I be reprimanded, demoted, disciplined. It was not pleasant getting this complaint where she wanted me disciplined and demoted. She also insisted that Queensland Health promise that I would never speak or write on behalf of water fluoridation again.”

As always, says Foley, it is the most vulnerable people who will pay for this war being waged on water. “Often most of the tooth decay is seen in the elderly and in disadvantaged people from a low socio-economic background. People who are poor and frail and don’t have the ability to really floss their teeth well. People whose diets have changed or people who are on lots of medication that dries their mouths.” Oh and the taxpayer. “Poor dental health that is largely preventable ends up with somebody paying for it. Probably taxpayers.”

Sadly, there has never been a better time to be a Queensland dentist.

Bite magazine and its associated website is published by Engage Media. All material is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without prior written permission. Explore how our content marketing agency can help grow your business at Engage Content or at YourBlogPosts.com.

Related

34 Comments

The use of industrial waste from the fertilizer industry to fluoridate is unsafe( 800 tonnes per million people per year). Naturally occurring calcium fluoride is not used . The contaminants such as arsenic and cadmium have no safe level when given to a population over many years .The morbidity and mortality from using this cheap waste is not justified.
As a practising dentist and Past President of the ADA ( SA) i think Dr Foley’s is wrong . The abuse i have received over many years is unprofessional. The ADA has banned me from membership and harassed me and other dentists who have concerns about the use of industrial waste to fluoridate the population.The ADA is bringing great discredit to the profession by forcing their view and trashing anybody who tries to discuss the issue.
It is time to open the debate and hear both sides of the issue. I think informed consent is very important.In the past 2 years the USA,Canada and New Zealand have moved to lower the max level to 0.7ppm due to concerns about fluorosis.
I would be pleased to publicly debate Dr Foley at a time suitable to us both.
The 2017 ADA convention would be a good time if im allowed to attend.

Dr. Andrew:
You are absolutely correct. This toxic waste fluoride used in drinking water, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.

Fluoride causes lowered IQ and increased ADHD in children.
The EPA has now classified fluoride as a neurotoxin (nerve and brain poison). Also, the world’s most renowned medical journal, “LANCET,” in 2014 reported that fluoride is a neurotoxin in the same category as mercury, lead and arsenic.

Fluoridation causes enamel damage (dental fluorosis) in 41% of all children (CDC data) and has also been shown to lower IQ in children with 50 research studies. Now it has been proven to cause ADHD, as reported in the “Journal of Environmental Health” (by Malin & Till, 2015).

A 2015 study from England’s University of Kent found that drinking water with added fluoride can wreck your thyroid, and lead to weight gain and depression.

Maybe james can list the medical and dental case histories of the people who have illnesses or disease from C.W.F at .7PPM There should be easy to find with 370 million people using fluoride daily
If there was any truth in what he says

Andrew, claims of contaminants like arsenic and cadmium in fluoridating chemicals is simply chemophobia. The fact is the levels of heavy metals can be measured and certificates of analysis are required.

If you look at the actual reported levels of contaminants and calculate the contribution they make to your tap water you find that the fluoridating chemicals contribute far less than 1% of the concentration of the heavy metals already in the natural source water.

I am a pro fluoride medico who once sat on a committee overseeing the recycling of waste water. I cannot imagine that public health authorities would add anything to the water supply that contained arsenic or cadmium. I would appreciate a definitive statement of what is used to fluoridate water supplies and where it comes from.

Fluoridation of water supplies is a serious public health issue. So is denial of scientific evidence especially when the deniers resort to threats, violence and other illegal and dangerous acts. But a bit of levity never physically hurt anyone especially if the author is the butt of the article.

Max Kamien Australian Doctor November 29, 2002

Kick in Teeth for a Doctor of Letters.

I was reared in the days when children were weaned on milk arrowroot biscuits and rewarded by doting grandparents with Violet Crumble bars. As a result, I have made regular contributions to the cost and upkeep of the Alfa Romeos and Porsches of two generations of dentists. This has primed my awareness of dental health as a major part of the health and well-being of the Australian populus.
In the early 1970s I was resident in the far west of New South Wales, as part of Professor John Cawte’s Arid Zone Project. Eight percent of my consultations with Aboriginal patients were due to toothache. The dental health of Aboriginal children and adults was appalling and in some cases mirrored the illustrations found in 19th century textbooks of dentistry. I saw cases of osteomyelitis of the mandible from longstanding dental abscesses, some of which resulted in fistulae that drained out below the patient’s chin. The dental health of non-Aborigines also left a lot to be desired.

Fluoridation was in the news and was seen by some as a positive and major public health measure and by others as an infringement of human rights and a communist plot to poison citizens of the free world. A 1968 Commission of Enquiry in Tasmania had supported fluoridation but the press remained ambivalent.

Two rural towns in the Central Coast region of New South Wales had decided to fluoridate their water supplies and several hundred people from each town immediately reported symptoms ranging from dizziness, nausea and acute fatigue to haemorrhoids and impotence. But the fluoride machine in one of the towns would not work and they were yet to receive any fluoride at all.

My task was to explore the role of the doctor as an agent of social change for the health and well being of the people in far west New South Wales. Clearly fluoridation of water supplies was part of my brief. I prepared a short position paper and sent it to all the shire clerks in the area with a request that fluoridation be discussed by the shire councillors. I also made a request to appear before them. Some three months later I was asked to turn up to one of those shire’s monthly meeting. I put my case, succinctly, to 12 Councillors, the Shire Clerk, the Health and Building Inspector and four concerned constituents of that shire.

The Shire President then announced that after reading and discussing the issue of fluoridation the councillors were divided in their opinion. They had discovered that a reputable nutritionist, Sister Philomena Earle of St John of God Hospital in Belmont, Perth (“the same place that you come from”) was against fluoridation and had listed its dangers. They had counted the number of letters after her name and after mine and since she had a lot more they had decided to vote against fluoridation.

Now Sister Earle’s only real qualification was a BSc but she was a paid up member of lots of organisations whose acronyms were appended after the BSc. I quickly replied that I was a modest man who did not use all of my qualifications that I then wrote out in full on a nearby blackboard. When you have a Diploma of Psychological Medicine from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of London (DPM (RCP & S) Lond. and a DCH (RCP & S) Lond.) this is the beginning of an alphabet of letters. The Shire President counted all the letters on the blackboard and announced that I had more letters than Sister Philomena Earle. Consistency and logic therefore dictated that he would change his view and vote for fluoridation. His view carried the day.

The Building and Health Inspector accompanied me to my car. On the way he said, “Well Max, you are a frigging fool”. “How’s that Tom”, I replied. He answered, “Haven’t you noticed that every bloody house has a rainwater tank. No one drinks the bloody water from the town’s supplies. They only wash in it”.

Dr. Harms, jwillie6 and other fluoridation opponents (FOs) selectively extract and edit information from over 70 years of research that has examined the benefits and risks of community water fluoridation. They use discredited studies and deliberately distorted conclusions to create the illusion of a public health program that is ineffective and dangerous – fabricating “evidence” that alleges drinking optimally fluoridated water causes a variety of serious health problems.
Unfortunately it is far easier to sell fear than it is to promote a considered review of more than 70 years of complicated scientific research. The majority of scientists and health professionals in the world who are involved with the study of fluorine chemistry and community water fluoridation or who treat patients who drink (or do not drink) water containing fluoride ions overwhelmingly support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay (and related health issues) in a community. Fluoridation opponents (FOs) are experts at exploiting fear.

Fear is not science. And the science is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their thousands of members) — as well as six Surgeons General since 1982 – continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay. These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.
~> ada(dot)org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium

FOs have no rational explanation for why many thousands of individuals who are committed to understanding science and doing everything in their power to improve people’s health continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation and reject the alleged “evidence” FOs seem to believe is so clear and convincing.

The fact is that once you actually take the time to carefully examine the fear-laced propaganda of FOs, strip away the fear-laced headlines and read the actual science, you will discover the evidence provides no proof for the fear-based claims.

A balanced review of all the evidence (not just the carefully selected and edited opinions in anti-F propaganda) can be found in two extremely helpful reviews:

The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health, Conclusions:
—> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water ﬂuoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artiﬁcial water ﬂuoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
—> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have conﬁrmed that water ﬂuoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
—> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to ﬂuorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”
~> who(dot)int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf

Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council 2016 Fluoridation Report, Conclusions:
—> “Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.”
~> scimex(dot)org/__data/assets/file/0017/106523/16399-NHMRC-Fluoride-Information.pdf
More references
~> who(dot)int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf
~> scimex(dot)org/__data/assets/file/0017/106523/16399-NHMRC-Fluoride-Information.pdf
~> ilikemyteeth(dot)org/fluoridation
~> americanfluoridationsociety(dot)com/home
~> bfsweb(dot)org
~> msof(dot)nz
~> ada(dot)org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation
~> cdc(dot)gov/fluoridation/index.html
~> scientificamerican(dot)com/article/a-plan-to-defend-against-the-war-on-science
~> ngm(dot)nationalgeographic(dot)com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

I am that Councillor that Dr Foley refers to in his interview.
At no point in time did I or anyone else think or suggest that my daughter’s kidney disease was caused by drinking fluoridated water. I am very disappointed in Dr Foley for suggesting otherwise. My daughter asked the question if flouride is removed from the body by the kidneys how does your body get rid of it when ur kidneys no longer work. My daughter is on haemodialysis. She was not given a straight answer on the night. I received an email a few days later informing me that the filters on the machine remove any fluoride from the water and the dialysis machine removes any from the body. The question I have is if you have impaired kidney function be it from old age diabetes or some other medical reason how does ur body remove the flouride if you are not having dialysis?
Prior to the information night on fluoride that was had by our Council, allowing both sides of the argument to have their say I had very little contact from the antifluoride movement. It was actually a procampaigner that prompted me to ask these questions.

Dr Foley I expect at the very least to receive an apology for ur comments in this article.

Community Water fluoridation reaches 370 million people every day, Not forgetting the millions that have used it in the last 70 years.
The anti fluoride lot will tell you it causes every illness from asthma to yellow fever, at .7PPM. But if that was the case, you would expect at least a million proven medical and Dental case histories of this so called damage, to make it a real concern
But when you ask them for one. They all run back and hide under their rock. Why? Because there is none.
So really all this scaremongering is to support their own personal agenda, And the wishes of the Natural Health Industry. Who stand to make millions from the sale of water filters and related rubbish
When CWF is stopped it is the community that loses Because CWF cuts the dental health bill . “per capita annual benefit ranged from $5.49 to $93.19.” http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00684.x

I would like to know who supplies our local councils with fluoride? Or do water corporations/local councils just source it from anywhere (including overseas) directly – without any quality control protocols? What I really want to know is….is there a company/organisation which is the big supplier of the fluoride that goes in our water supply? If from overseas, who tests its safety?

All the quality control is done according the The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) are designed to provide an authoritative reference to the Australian community and the water supply industry on what defines safe, good quality water, how it can be achieved and how it can be assured.
Now that was not hard to find was it. So really you are just throwing a red herring into the mix to incite doubt on the quality of drinking water And all drinking water with or without fluoride must pass these standards

I’m not asking about the quality of drinking water, with or without fluoride, or guidelines. I’m asking about the sourcing and supply of fluoride given that it sits outside TGA regulations, and, that this is sourcing is a new task for many local and newly established regional councils, vs very large water corporations that service large areas. So is there one company/organisation that is the big supplier of fluoride in Australia, or are there several? ?????

Should a dentist be called ‘doctor’ (Dr) in public fluoridation/scientific debate if they don’t have a PhD or medical qualifications? While there are currently no provisions under Health Practitioner National Law (2010) that specifically prohibit a dentist from calling themselves ‘doctor’ as a courtesy title within the confines of their dental surgery; it is not a wider professional title. A dentist would not self-confer the academic title of “Dr’ in a university context (unless that dentist has a doctorate).

Deference to ‘Guidelines’ does not answer the question of actual fluoride supplies and quality control. Perhaps the question should be more along the lines of, “What do Councils and Water Dosing Plants actually do when it comes to industrial fluoride sources, potential toxic contaminants and quality assurance procedures?” “Do they test for heavy metals such as lead or aluminium?” “Is the tap water content of heavy metals the same coming out of the tap as it is going in from the plant, as fluoride is known to corrode metal alloy fittings?” “Assuming that the Guidelines are being followed, are they sufficient in the first place to ensure safety of chronic fluoride ingestion – even for people with kidney disease?” “If chronic ingestion of fluoridated water is not recommended for people with renal disease, then where are the warnings for that group?” “What are the health consequences or side effects of toxic build up of fluorides in those that cannot excrete it effectively?” “Can you guarantee that no one will be harmed from chronic ingestion of fluoridated water, even those that drink large amounts in excess of 3 litres per day?”

The concern that using fluorosilicate additives to fluoridate drinking water causes water system pipes to corrode is not supported by science. At the level recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service for fluoridation of public water supplies (0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, or parts per million), the fluoride ion has little influence on either corrosion or on the amounts of corroded metals released into the water. Fluorosilicates contribute to better water stability with less potential for corrosion, because silica stabilizes the pipe surface.

Can you guarantee that any substance swallowed by mouth well not cause harm to the person concerned?
With Community Water Fluoridation the numbers and the evidence of harm speaks for itself
I dont see any anti fluoride/vaccine lobbyist listing any peer reviewed Medical or Dental case histories to back up any opinions, So according to recorded science , there is no problem

Chris, the CDCP USA Fact Sheet containing the paragraph that you copied (referenced below), goes on to say that lead and copper pipes can corrode and leach; being an issue for older US houses built before 1981. In Australia, such copper plumbing systems are commonly used. The article also identifies numerous localised variables (e.g. temperature, pH, alkalinity, biology) that can impact on stability (e.g. dissociation) and corrosiveness.
Re: your question: “Can you guarantee that any substance swallowed by mouth well [sic] not cause harm to the person concerned?”
Yes.
Clean, pure, water.
I’m going to look into who benefits from the sale of fluoride in Australia.
Reference:
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, USA. Fluoridation of Drinking Water and Corrosion of Pipes in Distribution Systems Fact Sheet https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/corrosion.htm

Yes I agree there should be warnings as The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6 (2011) state that “about 40% [of fluoride] is excreted in urine within 9 hours, and about 50% over 24 hours” (page.671). “Adults do so faster.” “People with kidney impairment have a lower margin of safety for fluoride intake. Limited data indicate that their fluoride retention may be up to three times normal” (page. 672).

While the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6 (2011) state that “people with kidney impairment have a lower margin of safety for fluoride intake” (p. 672), the exact safety margin for exposure to fluoride by renal patients is unknown (e.g. Helmut, 2008). Given the additional ingestion of fluoride from [unlabelled] food and drink sources (e.g. tea), I don’t see how a set universal safety margin for drinking water could be reliable for all patients. A 2017 study has also found interactive effects of fluoride, heavy metals and water hardness on kidney tissues (Wasana, et al., 2017).
References
Helmut, S (2008). Fluoridation of drinking water and chronic kidney disease: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008; 23 (1): 411. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm663
Wasana, Hewa M. S. et al. (2017) “WHO Water Quality Standards Vs Synergic Effect(s) of Fluoride, Heavy Metals and Hardness in Drinking Water on Kidney Tissues.” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 42516. PMC. Web. 7 May 2017.

Now have another, piece or irrelevent rubbish peddled by the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby
I quote “It has been reported that fluoride levels in water consumed by CKD patients in affected areas vary from 0.05 to 4.8 mg/L, with the mean value of 0.78 mg/L [1–4], which is well above the 0.5 mg/L, the limit recommended for tropical countries by the WHO [4]. Some reports provide alarming values as high as 3.9−7.3 mg/L fluoride levels in groundwater in some affected areas ” Now where in the western world would you find C.W.F levels like that?
Mind its good scaremonger stuff

So some researchers dosed a rat with 50 mg/liter of cadminium and 100 mg of fluoride for 12 weeks and wondered why they got sick and then tried to blame fluoride
When the WHO recommends 5 PPB for Cadminium
It obvious that you have never read the article or are just scaremongering as usual
Drinking water standards would never allow that concentration

So once again the old advice rings true . Always check the source paper of any claims made by the anti fluoride/vaccine lot as normally it is totally irrelevant to the argument

Chris… – Re: Rat fluoride study comment… Rats have a much greater tolerance to fluorides than humans, so to get he equivalent potential effect of what chronic ingestion of fluoride would be for humans they have to increase exposure levels.
You have missed the point completely about chronic ingestion of fluorides by people with renal impairment – their issues with elimination mean they build up fluoride levels to much higher and more toxic levels in the tissue cells. If it was ‘rubbish’ as you say, then why was it a point for concern for NHMRC who commented in their 2007 review that it should be investigated? Why do they have better warnings for CKD patients in USA and other countries? Australia has the worst record of warnings for such sensitive population subgroups – and in an age where we have the most issues with environmental toxins and their effect on our biology. I put it to you that fluoride is the actual ‘rubbish’ (industrial waste product bound up with heavy metals) that is being fed to people without their consent. It is an unconscionable medical prophylactic treatment that has no scientific justification or validation. Even if you were force feeding a patient with a real nutrient like vitamin C because it could save their life, this is still a medical intervention which the patient needs to consent to. Fluoridation assumes the whole population are ‘patients’ needing to be treated by the state because they don’t know any better. Who are you to dare to play God like this and override free will – AND without taking responsibility for the health consequences that arise from this action?

So what about the cadminium levels then?
And then we have the Kidney Health Australia saying in 2011 “In January 2011 the US Department of Health and Human Services proposed to revise the optimal level of fluoride used in water programs in the US from
a range of 0.7 –1.2 mg/L to a single level of 0.7 mg/L
.
Australian dental experts and government health departments highlighted several differences between the US and Australian experience, including the unavailability of low fluoride
children’s toothpastes in the US and high natural levels of fluoride in many US water supplies.
As such, they have agreed that the current water fluoridation policy continues to be appropriate for
Australia.”
Maybe you could post the toxicology report on your water,from a citable source,supplied by the water authority, to back up your claim that it contains heavy metals in dangerous levels?
And in your view fluoride is a “medical intervention” should ordinary water come under the same classification as it cures dehydration? And if that is the case, are you going to start a ban on all water?

Chris… I can see you feel quite emotional about letting go of long-held assumptions and beliefs. It is a normal human reaction when one encounters evidence of the truth. But the truth shall set you free and also help you to take precautions about the water you ingest for your own health safety. Let’s take a close look at the chemicals used in fluoridation and their laboratory trace element analysis: Na2SiF6 is NOT natural, but an industrial chemical byproduct containing metal contaminants. Here is a recent study from 2014 analyzing the metal contaminants of fluoridation chemicals commonly used, which are not regulated or controlled. Significant variations of metal contaminants were detected from one batch to another. Also, there should be zero lead in our water, yet fluoridation chemicals contain lead and also very high levels of aluminium.
Have you dared to look at exactly what is in those chemicals? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/
“Results show that metal content varies with batch, and all HFS samples contained arsenic (4.9–56.0 ppm) or arsenic in addition to lead (10.3 ppm). Two NaF samples contained barium (13.3–18.0 ppm) instead. All HFS (212–415 ppm) and NaF (3312–3630 ppm) additives contained a surprising amount of aluminum.”
The alumino-fluoride complex is particularly dangerous to health because fluoride increases access of aluminium across the gut 7 fold and across the blood-brain barrier 2-fold.
The fact is that governments and water authorities are flying blind with fluoridation. They are not monitoring, controlling or regulating the chemicals going into the water supply because they have bought into the belief paradigm that all is hunky dory ‘safe and effective’ with fluoridation and ‘don’t look over here’. If you don’t look, you don’t see.

Sands – Phyllis J Mullenix’s study is hardly new. Because of regulatory requirements, chemicals used for water treatment must satisfy levels of purity and certificates of analysis are required. So there is no shortage of chemical analysis for fluoridating chemicals.

The truth should set you free – so what about calculating the significance of these metals contaminants in fluorosilicic acid you refer to.

I have done this – and compared the contribution of these metal contaminants to drinking water – as a fraction of these metals already present in the natural, pure source water.

It is simply naive to cite data for analysis of concentrated water treatment chemical – one must calculate the significance of the data after the extreme dilution these treatment chemicals undergo – and compare that with the concentration of the same contaminants already present in the pure, natural source water.

You are completely wrong. Governments and water authorities are not flying blind. They do monitor and regulate the chemicals used.

It is the anti-fluoride activists who are completely blind to the science – they refuse to face up to the fact they are making a lot of fuss about nothing. If they are really concerned about metal contaminants at that level they should be protesting against the pure, natural source water used.

Ken… If you had bothered to read the whole study report by Mullenix you would have realised that the metals content in source water was also accounted for and it’s the addition of the fluoridation chemicals to what would be ingested from natural sources that pushes the dose and level of contaminants up too high. This is why USA lowered their fluoridation dose to .7ppm, but in my view it wasn’t low enough. The presence of metals in Hamilton City’s town water from leaching pipes does not justify adding extra fluoridation chemicals. If anything, it indicates a higher degree of caution should be exercised because of the cumulative effects of combining the contaminants from source waters and fluoridation chemicals.
Even worse is that the metal constituents of those chemical supplies tested changed from batch to batch! These are the lab results for actual for the sodium silicofluoride and fluorosilicic acid supplies used in fluoridation. If govt and water dosers were to test each batch and still add their 1ppm, this means at least in some cases they would be knowingly poisoning the water supply with toxic metals higher than the allowable limits. Surely you don’t propose that they are doing this knowingly?
Even diluted arsenic over time with chronic consumption can lead to poisoning and liver disease, and eventually premature death (this was a favourite poisoning method used by aristocracy of the middle ages to eliminate opponents without suspicion of murder). You will notice high levels of arsenic in fluoridation chemicals. What about how that adds to our overall toxic load from environment?
In addition you haven’t accounted for the synergistic effects of fluoride complexed with toxic metals and how fluoride greatly increases the access of aluminium to tissue cells. Each time you add an extra metal toxin into the mix you can increase the potency and lethality by magnitudes. Then you have to account for the presence of the cations magnesium and calcium – both of which can thankfully mitigate some of the toxic effects of fluoride, as they are antagonistic… but what about water supplies which are too low in magnesium and calcium? How do you control for any of this via your fluoridation treatment prophylactic for caries disease? Does the same medicine have the same effect on all people? (not that you can really make this medicine the same because metals content changes from batch to batch). Does it matter how much fluoride and metals people consume? ie. the dose? What if they drink more water – like 2, 3 or more litres per day? How does one regulate and control dose when the chemical is in the drinking water? Perhaps you could advise people not to ingest more than one litre per day… Even if they limit exposure to this amount (not counting other fluoride sources) they still wouldn’t be getting exactly the ‘right’ amount (whatever that is!) with each batch of chemicals dumped into the hopper because there are differing amounts of constituents. Do they test the chemicals supplied PLUS the resulting metals content of the water coming out of the tap at the other end (which can have extra leached lead from piping due to fluoride’s corrosive nature)? Surely you must be at least a little bit concerned at the potential adverse effects of metals toxicity when the water and consequently the food supply are so artificially dosed with high levels not normally found in surface waters (which is mainly calcium fluoride – not very soluble or well absorbed).
Sodium silicofluoride and fluorosilicic acid are more soluble than calcium fluoride and have easier access to tissue cells because they are the salt form – and an unnatural industrial chemical byproduct of chimney wastes at that! It is an industrial effluent and certainly not what would be served up by Nature from a clean (unpolluted by man) water source.

Sands – you clearly did not read my article “Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing.” The concentrations of metals in the source water I referred to had nothing to do with pipes or leaching from them. They are the natural levels present in the pure water. The concentrations are of course very low, but still detectable. And several hundred times the concentrations of any of these metals contributed by fluoridating chemicals to your drinking water.

My point is that it is misleading to cite metal concentrations in the concentrated treatment chemical – it is the final concentration in the drinking water which is relevant – and this is lower than that from the pure, natural source water.

Another article that could be useful is my “Fluoridation: Some simple chemistry” (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/fluoridation-some-simple-chemistry/). This explains that there are no fluorosilicates in your final drinking water – these chemicals decompose in dilution to form the hydrated fluoride anion – exactly the same anion natural in pure source water – derived from dissolution of calcium fluoride (fluorite) or apatites.

Chris, the study I cited refers to ‘interactive’ effects; but you obviously missed that point. I have no views on vaccines (don’t have children) and this is the first time I have ever posted on fluoridation; so why your repeated need for labelling people who express views that differ to yours? My original question to this post was – who supplies the fluoride? You should reference the original sources of the [often copyrighted] grey literature you copy and paste. FYI several regions in WA, NT and QLD have naturally high fluoride levels (e.g. see the Julia Creek Water Treatment Plant for Fluoride Removal). Potential exposure to artificially over-fluoridated water is also a problem – e.g. see Queensland Health’s investigation into the North Pine treatment plant (QLD), where several homes received way above the recommended dose of fluoride. An external independent laboratory tested a water sample and found a fluoride concentration value of 19.6mg/L. Also note that “the on-line fluoride analyser located at the treatment plant is only capable of measuring a maximum of 3mg/L” (Queensland Health 2009, p.4).
Let’s hope the government conduct a national inquiry into fluoridation – I see no point continuing here.
Reference:
Queensland Health, Population Health Queensland, Investigator’s Report: Water Fluoridation Incident North Pine Water Treatment Plant, June 2009.

Ken… There is still a lot of academic debate about whether it fully dissociates in water: http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Urbansky-Fate-Of-Fluorosilicate-Drinking-Water-Additives-American-Chemical-Society-Chem.-Rev.-2002-102-2837-2854.pdf
In any case, the main point is the accumulation in tissue cells of who knows how much fluoride and toxic metals with chronic ingestion? Do the lead, aluminium, arsenic and other toxic contaminants disappear? Does the fluoride disappear when it breaks up in water? What contaminants can it recombined with on its travels into the body and through your veins? Have you added in what contaminants may already be present in the natural source water? And what about adding any extras picked up along the way from the metal alloy piping systems that fluoridated water travels through before it comes out of kitchen taps? What is the magnification effect and toxic synergy of adding multiple forms of metal contaminants with fluoride? Lead fluorosilicate is one of the most water-soluble forms of lead. In fact, fluorosilicic acid has been used as a solvent for lead and other heavy metals in metallurgy. Fluoride is the most tightly binding element on the periodic table and will readily bind with many a toxic metal (diluted or not!). There is only a variation of intensity. Dilution does not prevent the leaching of lead from pipes by fluoride (or binding to aluminium etc).
Not only does fluoridation pose unnecessary risks with chronic ingestion, but it also causes many skin disorders with repeated washing and bathing in it, most especially when combined with chlorine or chloramines… Now chloramines are being used more as disinfectant, it is worthwhile to note they are also a notorious solvent for lead. These chemicals are know to cause lipid disordering in skin membranes leading to dry itchy skin and in some genotypes severe inflammatory symptoms. Not only is fluoiridaion bad because it delivers a dangerous chemical cocktail, but those chemicals are also skin penetration enhancers breaking down lipid barrier protection and letting in whatever they come packaged with at the time!

But you keep going on about the accumulation of ” fluoride and toxic metals with chronic ingestion?” And ask “Do the lead, aluminium, arsenic and other toxic contaminants disappear?”

Of course, they don’t disappear – they just under extreme dilution so that their contribution to the final water co9cnetraitosn is hundreds of times less that the “lead, aluminium, arsenic and other toxic contaminants” naturally in the pure source water.

if you are worried about the contribution fo metal contaminants from fluosilicic acid then you7 should be several hundred times more worried about the same metal contaminants that are always present naturally in pure source water.

Have a read of my article.

The fact is water treatment authorities regularly monitor the concentrations of such contaminants in the pure source water and in the final tap water. The also get certificates of analysis for the different batches of fluoridating chemicals (and other water treatment chemicals) used. (it turns out that fluosilicic acid produced in fertiliser plants is actually very pure – no doubt a result of the differential evaporation of the different metal fluorides).

Why don’t you enquire from you own local water treatment plant – they should be able to provide you with their regular analytical data.

Ken… No, that is a side track. The debate is not about how fluoride may break up in water, but in the package of metal contaminants it comes with that can have an synergistic toxic effect on our cell biology (on skin and ingested) with chronic exposures. You still have not acknowledged the potential for toxic levels that can be accumulated by drinking more than one litre per day (ie. how to control dose). Since last century it has been well known that fluoride is a thyroid suppressant due to its antagonism of iodine even at the dilution rate of fluoridation. This has been supported by many researchers including most recently in 2015 by Peckham et al: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25714098 Yes, dissociated or not, fluoride and its metallic comrades do have a deleterious effect on our cell biology.
You keep repeating that some source waters can have more of those metallic contaminants. So why are you not adding up the quantities that can be ingested cumulatively when you add-in fluorides from all sources (water and foods made with fluoridated water, toothpastes, drugs)? Isn’t this how the REAL world in vivo works? We are getting so many extraneous exposures to fluorides and its binding metals from the environment because via drinking water it has now become ubiquitous in our environment – via ‘halo’ effect. This was acknowledged in USA when they cut back concentration to 0.7ppm. Why add even more of a pollutant, potential poison and endocrine disruptor? It makes no sense. When is enough, enough?
Can you even say what ‘optimal fluoridation’ means exactly? How much should people ingest in your opinion for them to be ‘optimally fluoridated’ (that is not at toxic levels and enough to prevent caries as promoted).
The water guidelines are only just that… ‘guidelines’ …and in most cases they do not test every batch of chemicals used. It is assumed that what is stamped on the label of the bag is what is in the bag. I know this from various sources – including an employee involved in the water dosing process. You can also do your due diligence and ask various councils and water dosers… Make sure to ask what they actually do, not what they are ‘supposed to do’ via the guidelines. Ask them also how many times they ‘overdose’ when equipment malfunctions… that one is very interesting too. Better still… Buy a bag and get it lab tested yourself. The best validation is experience.
You say the chemicals are ‘pure’. What does that mean exactly? Containing pure fluoride? Pure lead? Pure aluminium? Pure arsenic? The study I sent you actually analysed various batches of fluoridation chemicals… Did you not see what was present? Do you call this ‘pure’?
Or maybe ‘pure’ means unprocessed and raw – straight out of the chimney scrubbers and into the chemical bags to sell to water dosers? Now it’s my turn to say, ‘pure rubbish’.
Let us finish here because you obviously have a myopic focus of just ‘chemicals dissociating in water ‘ and nothing else to do with dose, effect on cells and the human right to choose medication (an unnatural intervention with an unnatural substance) and take responsibility for associated risks and side effects. Don’t look, won’t find… It’s a ‘dead’ end street.

I asked you to provide a report from you local water authority to back up any claims ,And so did Ken. But nothing , wonder why
And if CWF was as bad as you paint it where are all the medical case histories to back up any claims there is none. wonder why
Because it is all scaremongering

Sands – again and again, I have pointed out to you that “the package of metal contaminants it comes with ” is greater for the naturally pure source water than it is for water treatment chemicals. The extreme dilution means that in the end, the source water contributes hundreds of times more of the metals than does the fluoridating chemical.

if you are seriously worried about this “the package of metal contaminants” then you should be out on the street protesting about the pure natural source water which contains more of these contaminants.

Please read my article – it uses real analytical certificate data and shows how after dilution there is extremely little contaminant contributed – hundreds of times less than from the pure source water itself.

Do you not realise Peckham’s study has been roundly criticised in the scientific journals because he did not include iodine as a covariate. The most obvious cause of hypothyroidism is iodine deficiency – and he ignored it!

I rang up TRILITY – the PRIVATE and FOREIGN OWNED corporation that fluoridates the water in Townsville. Yes, you read correctly – it’s not done by the council. It’s outsourced to a FOREIGN OWNED CORPORATION. I talked to one of the TRILITY managers but he refused to tell me from which country and company they source the fluoride. He said it’s a company secret. I then told him that the citizens of Townsville have a right to know where it comes from. But he kept refusing and became very interested who I am and who I work for.

I also asked him if the Queensland Health Department or any other government department ever visits the TRILITY facility, opens a fluoride bag and takes some samples for laboratory testing. He said: “No, TRILITY are testing it INTERNALLY. No government involved.”

I then contacted the QLD health department to confirm that. The department told me that they NEVER test the fluoride that comes into the country. It’s done completely at the discretion of TRILITY.

I said to them, that’s crazy. How can they just trust a FOREIGN OWNED, PRIVATE corporation to bring a substance into the country put it into our water, have it never tested by an Australian laboratory and keep it a secret where they source it from… The QLD health department didn’t reply me to that. They just cut me off.